Standing Committee E

[Frank Cookin the Chair]

Frank Cook: Before I propose the question, as it is some time since I attended the Committee’s deliberations—if deliberations they are—I remind Members that I am hard of hearing. In any case, it is protocol and proper practice to address comments towards the Chairman. I am sad to tell you that I shall not receive my hearing aid until the day after this Committee ends, so stand up, speak up, and make it clear, please.

Clause 7

Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools

Amendment proposed [18 April]: No. 24, in page 6, line 34, at the end, insert the words—
'(1A) A local authority shall publish a notice under subsection (1) in circumstances where 35 per cent or more of school places are in schools that are underperforming.'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Frank Cook: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1A) A local education authority must publish such a notice if they receive representations from 50 or more parents of qualifying children in connection with the establishment of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school or an academy.
(1B) In subsection (1A) “qualifying child”, in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.
No. 193, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1B) In subsection (1A) a maintained school is “underperforming” if, in the previous academic year, it was in the fourth quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.’.
No. 25, in clause 7, page 7, line 1, after second ‘a’, insert ‘reasonable’.
No. 65, in clause 7, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
‘(ca) specify appropriate qualifications for persons other than local education authorities wishing to establish the new school,’.
No. 27, in clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert
‘, such time not to be less than a period of two months,’.

Greg Mulholland: Welcome back to the Chair after the Easter break,Mr. Cook.
I want to reiterate a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) made absolutely clear when she spoke to our amendment, which is that it is very much a probing amendment. We simply do not feel that we have got any further forward in trying to establish suitable criteria for the kind of organisations that will set up charitable trusts in order to establish schools under the Bill.
Recently, we and Conservative Front Benchers have moved probing amendments, and we were all pleased that the Under-Secretary responded to them in the tone in which they were presented. He provided the Committee with a lot of useful information that led us to feel quite happy to withdraw them. [Interruption.] I remember that at Leeds city council we were fined £5 every time a mobile phone went off. Perhaps that is something that you would like to consider for the Committee, Mr. Cook, but of course it is a matter entirely for you.
I really do not understand why the Minister for Schools and the Government are being so cagey about the issue. Surely it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to provide an idea of the kind of organisations deemed suitable to set up the charitable trusts to establish new schools. Surely it is vital that we have that information, not only in this Committee but in the public domain, so that there are no issues of confidence, such as there are among the teaching professions—as I am sure the Minister for Schools is well aware—and among sections of the public about the kind of organisations that have been linked to setting up charitable trusts.
I want to ask the Minister a question. Again, we are probing; all we want is to get some idea about the matter. Are there no types of organisation that she would deem unsuitable to set up a charitable trust to form a new school? We have had mention of fast-food and tobacco companies, and also a certain religious sect. The issue is so important because of the influence that those companies have. That is not to say that private companies should not be involved in setting up schools and should not provide some funding; that is a different debate, and not one that we are having now. However, given that the Bill means that they will have influence, surely it is appropriate to specify firm criteria for the kind of organisations that should be involved.
There is also a question about the charitable trusts themselves. There is a lack of confidence that the position of trustees is sufficiently watertight in respect of the people having involvement in schools. It is possible for someone to be a trustee of a charity when they have spent convictions or are a former bankrupt. Can we have some reassurance about that issue? We need to create a framework to ensure that people who set up charitable trusts to run schools are the kind of people that we would all want to run schools.
The Minister will be well aware of the case brought to our attention by the Daily Mirror in which a convicted paedophile set up a charitable trust, so there are issues relating to the Charity Commission. Will she examine the matter and reassure us that the kind of people who set up charitable trusts to run schools are those whom we would want to be involved in our schools? Will she give us some information on that point? Will she give us an idea about what she deems to be suitability, above and beyond what is necessary to become a trustee of a charitable trust? That provision is not sufficient to give people confidence that the organisations that will be bidding to set up new schools involve the kind of people that we want to run our schools.

Annette Brooke: I was too late to intervene on my hon. Friend, so I shall make some brief comments on one or two of the amendments in this group—and I shall speak up, Mr. Cook.
Amendment No. 24 is an incredibly blunt instrument. It would mean that even more power would be taken away from local authorities. It is blunt because we know that the value-added measure is far from perfect. Its rigidity means that, as with many targets that we have experienced, which all of us criticise, there would be ways of working around it. That might be to its detriment.
Amendment No. 179 proposes that a notice be triggered if 50 parents petition. We have rehearsed well the arguments about 50 being too small a number. What sort of cost would the measure impose on the local authority? Where 50 parents signed a petition the local authority would have a great deal of work to do. The idea of putting such extra burdens on local authorities and diverting them from what their real jobs should be is worrying.

Nick Gibb: Would the hon. Lady regard it as an inconvenience to an elected local authority if 50 of its constituents or ward members were to write to it about another issue, for example road sweeping? Would she regard having to respond to those constituents’ concerns as a darned inconvenience to the local authority?

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. I am suggesting that we are not talking necessarily about a call for a locally delivered service to which one would expect an instantaneous response. The proposal would mean a great deal of expense for a local authority. It is not the same as ensuring that the refuse lorry goes down someone’s street next week. The proposal represents a lot of work for the principals involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) said, we think that it is an interesting concept for the local authority to have to review some of its processes or perhaps to convene a committee. However, to start triggering the whole process of setting up a new school is an administrative burden that is a few steps too far.
I should like to be brief. I was moving on from that point and I think that I am delaying the Committee. On the Liberal Democrats’ probing amendment, I should like to convey our real concerns, as we move further through the Bill, about the governance of schools being taken away from the local community. I believe in local decision making. We do not even know how far the governance will be taken and in what direction, but it is pertinent, in respect of this clause, to know who will be able to set up a trust foundation and take on the valuable assets of the local authority and the community. As far as we can see, looking at the potential for trustees, there could be mismanagement of those valuable community assets, yet later in the Bill we will see the power to control those taken away from the local community. I want to underline why we have the greatest concerns about the proposals for trust schools.

James Clappison: May I warmly—and loudly—welcome you to the Chair this morning, Mr. Cook? I shall speak in support of the amendment ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on Tuesday afternoon. The Conservative amendments are good in their own way, and I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously consider pressing them and at least give the Minister the opportunity to reply, because they were tabled in the spirit in which we have given qualified support to the Bill. Even if my hon. Friend chooses not to press the amendment to a vote, it will enable a good debate to take place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I will not follow the same path as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West. It is fair to ask questions, as he did this morning, about the character and nature of the people who will run the trusts schools to be established under the clause. Those are reasonable questions, but I am not sure about the background to the Liberal Democrats’ approach to this issue. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was anybody the Government would exclude from running the new schools to be established under the clause—and as a result of the amendments moved by my hon. Friend. The real question for the Liberal Democrats, which they have not yet answered, is whether there is anybody they would allow to run such a school.

Sarah Teather: The question is not about who we would or would not exclude, but about the model within which they would be included. We would not include people in a model where a trust could take over the whole governing body, or had freedom over admissions. We will be dealing with such issues later in the Bill and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to learn something then.

James Clappison: That does not answer the point about whether, even if there was the model that the hon. Lady sought, there would be anybody of any character whom the Liberal Democrats would be prepared to accept. However, we will no doubt deal with that later in the Bill and see whether they have anything constructive to offer on this subject.
The Conservative amendments are good, and they are in the spirit of our support for the Bill: they seek to put power into the hands of parents, especially when schools are underperforming. It is always possible to quibble with Opposition amendments and ask what is the magic in a particular figure. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked what was the magic in the figure of 35 per cent. of places in underperforming schools, which is in amendment No. 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will produce some academic research about that in due course. He asked what research my hon. Friend had seen—my hon. Friend may care to reply. However, I bet my bottom dollar, without any research whatsoever, that there is no magic for the children, or the parents of those children, with places in those schools. If we are to be conscientious about the Bill and to give children, especially those in underperforming schools, a chance, we must consider seriously amendments such as this.
If children, and their parents, are stuck, with no way out of an underperforming school, their prospects will be blighted for life. It may occur to the hon. Gentleman that many such children come from low-income families in the less well advantaged parts of the country; their parents may not have the incomes or opportunities to enable them to escape. My hon. Friend has done a service in highlighting this subject and I make no bones about the fact that it is good for those of us on the Conservative Benches to consider the prospects of children stuck in underperforming schools. I have no qualms about putting power into parents’ hands.
The hon. Member for Bury, North says, “Ah yes, but what about local authorities? Should we not leave such decisions to the local community?” Let us speak frankly about things as they are, rather than in terms of strict sociological theory. As the hon. Gentleman should know from his experience in the north of England, many parts of that and other areas have strong traditions of local governance that have been associated with control by one party of local authorities in which there have been large numbers of underperforming schools.
Parents in such areas have been left with no way out. The Under-Secretary chortles. I shall not go into the issue on a party political basis, but if he wants I shall name and shame local authorities, long in the hands of one party, with numbers of underperforming schools that have continued to underperform. In some cases, parents with the opportunity have taken flight, but many children have been stuck in those schools. That is the reality. Some parts of the country are stuck under a certain political control; that goes for all parties.
The amendment offers a way out for children and parents. It is entirely right for my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to table amendments that consider ways to assist children in underperforming schools. Clause 3, under which local authorities will have a duty to consider parental representations, has already gone some way towards achieving the spirit of the amendment. If putting power into parents’ hands is to have the sort of dire consequences suggested by the hon. Member for Bury, North, one wonders how some elements have been able to support clause 3, which is not a million miles from the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend.
I wonder whether there is not some giant misunderstanding about the Bill in some quarters of the Labour party. The amendment enables us to debate the issues and reconcile any misunderstanding. Through it, we Conservatives have planted our flag in favour of giving parents opportunities and considering closely giving parents the chance to do something about situations in which schools are underperforming. I make no apologies for supporting my hon. Friend’s amendment.

Nadine Dorries: I, too, support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Who will be more concerned about what type of education is provided for children—50 sets of parents who live in a community and whose children attend a school, or a local education authority officer?
The Bill leaves the decision whether to publish the invitation entirely in the hands of the LEA; it is not to be determined by local parents or local need. The amendment would take ownership of that decision from the LEA and put it back into parents’ hands. It proposes a mechanism or trigger that would kick in a process in which parents or local need could decide.
It is not as though the concept of taking decisions from an LEA is entirely new. After all, the White Paper—not the Bill, which is a hybrid including what was initially the White Paper—proposed to remove power from LEAs and give more of it to parents, schools and governing bodies. There can be only one glaringly obvious reason for doing that, and it is why the Prime Minister knew that he would face such opposition—LEAs are letting local education down. On that basis, an amendment that would provide children in underperforming schools with a safety net seems infinitely sensible, as does the figure of 35 per cent.
As my hon. Friend pointed out when he referred to the National Audit Office reports, more than 1 million children are in underperforming schools, and probably another 1 million are in coasting schools. On Tuesday afternoon, the Minister shouted across the room to me from a sedentary position that “underperforming” was not Ofsted terminology. Maybe not, but it is NAO terminology, and that is good enough for me. The NAO states that 1 million children are in underperforming schools. Who allows that situation to continue? It is the LEAs, the same LEAs to whom clause 7 will give the responsibility of deciding whether new provision is needed in their local communities.
If 50 sets of parents cannot decide—if they cannot pull the lever to trigger the process in areas with underperforming schools—who can? Who will pull that lever? What will make an LEA decide to publish the notice inviting proposals for the establishment of a new school? Will it automatically do so when it finds that about 35 per cent. of places in its area are in underperforming schools, as probably happens at the moment? Will it want to make the statement that schools in its area are failing so badly, or will it coast on that decision? Will it put it off and put off publishing the invitation, hoping that things will get better? If so, who will be failed? It will be the children in those underperforming schools.
On Tuesday I mentioned the first Hindu school established in the UK. How many parents were the prime motivators behind that much-welcomed school? Fewer than 20. How many individuals are the motivators behind the establishment of any school, including faith schools? Fewer than a handful, in most cases. How many people were the prime motivators behind Microsoft, one of the most ardent supporters of the proposals in the Prime Minister’s White Paper? Just one.
Is the Minister really saying, like the hon. Member for Bury, North, that 50 is an insignificant number of parents in an area where schools are underperforming? How many parents does the Minister think will join the parent councils to plan and run new trust schools? If each new school had 50 actively involved sets of parent, she would be delighted. Suddenly, 50 parents would become a fantastic figure, not a derisory one. After all, that is as good as a full complement of staff in an average-size comprehensive school.
Fifty nurses can man 12 active, fully occupied 30-bed surgical wards on a busy operation day. Why cannot 50 parents decide that a proposal for a new school is needed? Six nurses can run an average accident and emergency department on a Saturday night in a busy city centre, so why is 50 such a derisory number when it applies to parents deciding the future of a school?
I reiterate a point that I made on Tuesday. If a school is in a community where average house prices are low or house prices do not exist—they did not in the community where I grew up—the socio-economic grouping is low, unemployment and crime are high and the community itself is failing, is it not the fact that if 50 parents come forward, that is as good as double that number in an area where average house prices are high? Should not those parents be given greater consent and interest than parents in another area?
I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue the amendments. If the Minister does not think that 50 is an adequate figure, perhaps she could amend the amendment to give areas of social deprivation with underperforming schools some leeway so that if 50 parents come forward in those areas, they will be listened to and given consideration.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Would it not be some help if the Minister—without setting a target, as she says that she is not prepared to do that—could give us some indication of the number of schools that she expects will receive trust status as a result of the processes put in place by the Bill?

Nadine Dorries: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I wonder how many trust schools the Minister thinks will be in areas of the greatest deprivation.
If it is not acceptable for 50 parents to instigate an invitation, who will be the innovators? Who will identify the need? How will potential providers know that the opportunity to provide a new school exists, and that there is a genuine need for one? Would not the parents be the first people to identify that need? If that is left to the LEAs, mediocrity may remain the norm, and we may never be in a position where all children in state schools receive the same level of education as those in independent schools. That is what we all want, and it is why the aims and objectives of the White Paper are so far removed from those in the Bill.

John Hayes: I shall be brief, because this subject has been well covered. However, I wish to make three points.
The Minister must have some notion of where she expects these schools to have their genesis—of where she expects the first of them to emerge. This project lies at the heart of the Bill, and if it is to have real life it is important that those schools emerge in the areas of greatest need. As this is central to the White Paper and a key intention of the Bill, it is absolutely right that the Minister should explain to the Committee how she expects the process to germinate. What will the trigger be—to borrow the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries)? It would be a sad situation if these schools were concentrated in one part of the country and entirely absent from others. This concept has legs only if there is a real chance that it will rejuvenate the educational opportunities of some of the disadvantaged students in some of the most disadvantaged areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) says.
I turn to my second point. It is right that there should be a balance between the role of local authorities, which are properly involved in education—I have no prejudice in respect of the role of local authorities in education—and the role of parents. That balance lies at the heart of the White Paper and the Bill. However, in striking that balance one must appreciate that at present the weight of power clearly rests with LEAs, not with ordinary people. It does not rest with parents who may be unsure about their capacity and ability to challenge what they see as the local orthodoxy—the conventional thinking in their locality. I am unsure whether the Bill in its current form gets that balance right. The amendments would adjust that balance and frame the intent of the White Paper in the Bill.
My third point is that there is clearly a need to take on board the view articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere and for Mid-Bedfordshire, which scotches the arguments of the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrat Members say that there are only a few people who should be involved in education, and that many people should be prohibited from involvement because they are unsuitable—they are not of adequate character or well intentioned. I do not believe that that view pervades the thinking of the current Government, and it certainly does not pervade the view of the official Opposition. I also do not think that it is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation.

Greg Mulholland: I am fascinated by the obsession that certain Conservative Members have with the fact that we Liberal Democrats are trying to ask questions. They are merely setting up a straw man. We are simply trying to establish some criteria for the kinds of organisations that will be involved. The hon. Member for Hertsmere made it clear that that was perfectly legitimate. Does the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) think there is anything wrong in doing that?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; of course the Committee should ask questions. Questions are asked by Committee members of all parties—not just by Members from the minor parties, but by Government Members and by the official Opposition. The purpose of a Committee is to scrutinise and question, but those questions must be based on some sort of rationale, and it seems to me that the rationale of the Liberal Democrats is that narrow, short-sighted, rather prejudiced view of the way that schools should be organised, funded and run, which has done so much damage and led to the need for the White Paper and this legislation.
What I think has happened is that the party of Government has grudgingly and falteringly come to a position that we adopted long ago, but the Liberal Democrats are lost. They have been left behind; they are still in a quagmire. That is well illustrated—indeed personified—by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Her views represent the worst and most myopic understanding of education, which the Government have stepped beyond in the wake of the official Opposition, who led them to this more enlightened view of how schools can be run, how parents should have influence in them, and how outside organisations can help to stimulate and fund them.
As I said, my third point is that I hope the Minister will, in answering the questions she has been asked, reassure the Committee about the criteria we will use to judge the sort of people who will be involved. However, let us not, for heaven’s sake, rule out before we begin all that extra energy, enterprise and initiative that can come from involving people who thus far have not been involved in the business of funding and supporting education. Of course there should be checks and balances, and of course there should be restrictions if people do not do the job properly, but we must understand that these organisations will be charitable trusts. Therefore, they are, by definition, limited in terms of their ambitions, and they are also unlikely to be the kind of wicked and monstrous organisations that the party on my left, in every sense—the Liberal Democrats—seems to think they might be.

Greg Mulholland: We have heard some foolish statements from the hon. Gentleman, but that takes the biscuit. Is he denying the case reported in the Daily Mirror of a charitable trust being set up in the name of a convicted paedophile?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is doing himself no favours, because of course no member of this Committee would want inappropriate people to be supporting, sponsoring or running schools. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of Parliament, and I do not usually resort to this kind of sentiment, Mr. Cook, but he really ought to grow up. All Members who serve on Committees that consider these kinds of Bills have the best interests of the children of this country at heart. All of us want there to be good opportunities for people to prosper and to achieve their educational potential. All of us understand that the people who teach, run, fund and govern schools have to be right and proper people. The hon. Gentleman is right to challenge and question, but, for heaven’s sake, let us not go into the realms of fantasy and assume—

Greg Mulholland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: No, because the hon. Gentleman’s last comment was facile. We should keep this debate in the realms of common sense. It is important that we understand that the Bill provides an opportunity for additional resources, skill and energy to be brought into the education system through the activity and ambitions of parents, and through the organisations that might be persuaded to support education and have yet not done.
Having made my three points, I want to state my strong support for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. In striking the balances I have described, they would be useful additions to the Bill and in keeping with the spirit of the White Paper. They are designed to improve the legislation, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks, but unless she says something very persuasive, I, like my hon. Friends, will want to take the matter further.

Edward Leigh: The Minister’s speech today will be particularly important, because it will give us an opportunity to find out exactly how the new schools will germinate. We can lay aside party politics for the moment, because both Conservative and Labour parties have a lot to answer for as a result of their time in government.
There have been references to the National Audit Office report. Why is it that there are 1 million children in underperforming schools in this country? We have to stand back for a moment, forget all the brickbats that we throw at each other, and ask why our schools are underperforming, particularly when we benchmark them against those in France, Germany and Italy, our competitor and partner countries. Why is our education system apparently not delivering the goods in so many areas? Is it something to do with the way in which we frame legislation in this House, or is it to do with the structure of education on the ground? We have to ask ourselves seriously whether some of the blame lies with local education authorities, which are perhaps not proactive, visionary or creative enough. That question, I presume, is what motivated the Prime Minister and his closest colleagues to bring forward this Bill, in the face of great opposition. That is all very well, and we all accept that.
The Minister will say that she believes in choice and diversity and, no doubt, that interest has been expressed in setting up the new schools. The fact is that when the last Conservative Government tried to create grant-maintained schools in certain areas they were very popular. The Minister will say that the schools that we are discussing are nothing like grant-maintained schools, but there are similarities—let us be honest about it. I understand that about a fifth of secondary schools in those areas became grant maintained. However, in other areas, such as Scotland, there were virtually none; in fact, that was a matter of pride in Scotland, was it not? I can remember when Lord Forsyth was Secretary of State, and despite his best efforts, such was the power of the establishment in Scotland that for a long time there was not a single grant-maintained school in Scotland. By the end of the Conservative period in office, there were perhaps one or two.
Presumably the Minister believes in the concept that we are discussing and wants it to be a success. However, as a result of pressure that has been placed on her, is she not giving those in local authorities who are opposed to the concept too much power to prevent the new schools from germinating? That is a question that we have to ask. She may now come along with cleverly devised speaking notes that will rubbish the proposal made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but the Opposition have a right to probe and to ask questions. We do not know whether the mechanism suggested by my hon. Friend is exactly the right one; all that we are trying to get out of the Minister is how we are to encourage the process, against enormous resistance, so that the new schools can germinate. Otherwise, in many areas of our country, the concept will be stillborn.
There will be some areas where there are active local authorities committed to what the Minister is trying to do, or active sets of parents, schools, institutions or other bodies coming in from outside; we do not know. However, the Minister must recognise that there will be many other areas—precisely those where most of the problems occur—where nothing will happen. So it is not good enough for the Minister to say to us, in general terms, “I have had 10 or 20 proposals.” We are talking about thousands of schools. What we want to hear from the Minister is how she will ensure that her idea takes root in the ground and flowers, precisely in the areas where most of the problems are.

Angela Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that in many of the most deprived areas of the country, Labour authorities do indeed have invitations to establish city academies? It is not true that LEAs are blocking the development of diversity in the system.

Edward Leigh: Good. That is very helpful. When the Minister replies, she can refer to particular areas where there are city academies. She can convince the Committee that despite all the difficulties that there have been in the Labour party about the issue, and despite all the opposition from the NUT, the education establishment, many local authorities and many Labour Members of Parliament, the proposal will turn out like city academies; local authorities will not be able to block it. She can convince us that we will have not just a couple of dozen of these new schools, but perhaps hundreds, and that this will be an important Bill that makes a big difference; something akin to what we achieved in 1944, or another of the great landmarks in education. If what we are talking about is just a few schools—there have not been that many city academies—

Nadine Dorries: Twenty.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend says 20. There are some 3,500 secondary schools in England and there are 20 city academies. Has the establishment of city academies actually made a great deal of difference to most kids in most parts of the country? The answer must be no. We are worried that the same will happen in this case. We made a great mistake when we were in power; we should have ensured that every school became grant maintained, but that was opposed in the Department and in the House of Lords. Many of the problems that the Labour party cites in opposition to grant-maintained schools, such as cherry picking and getting better funding than other schools, stemmed directly from the fact that not all schools became grant maintained. If all schools had freed themselves from the shackles of control, we could really have revived education in this country.
The independent sector is more successful not just because it has more resources but because it has freedom to manage. The Minister recognises that. Her vision for these new schools is that they will be creative and will have more freedom to manage. What concerns us is that there will be too few of them.

Anne Snelgrove: The grant-maintained school system depended on those schools taking a disproportionate amount of money out of the local education system. Therefore, I should be interested to know how the hon. Gentleman’s Government would have funded all the secondary schools going grant maintained. I was heavily involved in education at that time, so I can tell him for a fact that there would not have been enough money in the system.

Edward Leigh: I know that the attack that is constantly made on grant-maintained schools is that they got better revenue support than other schools. However, the hon. Lady has ignored the point that I was making. I accepted that the main charge made by the Labour party against grant-maintained schools was that they got better funding. That is a controversial view—some agree, some do not—but I accepted it for the sake of argument. If all schools had become grant maintained, that charge would not have held water. That is the lesson that we must learn as we develop our policies in opposition for the next period of Conservative Government, whenever that might be.

Nick Gibb: Of course, that is now the Government’s policy. Paragraph 2.5 on page 24 of the White Paper says:
“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust”,
so the Government have learned from mistakes made in the earlier Administration.

Edward Leigh: Yes, I think that they have learned. I have a lot of time for the Minister, who is part of the forces of light in the argument; she is trying to push the stone up a difficult hill. However, I suspect—in fact, I pretty well know, and she would not be in her position if she had not accepted this—that she wants to move towards precisely what the Prime Minister wants. She wants schools to become increasingly independent of local authorities. I fear, though, that she is falling into the same hole that we fell into. Because she cannot get the measures through her own party, the House of Lords or the education establishment, she is allowing too many checks and balances to prevent these excellent new schools from forming.
When we consider the issue again, in the next education Bill, under the next Government in four or five years’ time, we will find that there are 20, 30, 40, 50 or perhaps even 100 or 200 foundation schools. That will be an insignificant proportion of the number of schools in England and Wales? How many are there? Is it 20,000? The Minister can tell us the exact number off the top of her head. Even if there are 200 foundation schools, all the time that we have spent on this Bill will have been wasted. Let us hear from the Minister, and let her now assure us that that there will not be just a few score of schools but many hundreds, and that she has developed mechanisms to create new life in our education system.

Jacqui Smith: The debate has ranged pretty widely this morning. Let us remind ourselves that clause 7 provides that a local authority in England can publish a notice inviting proposals for a new school, including an academy. The effect of the clause—together with the other clauses in this part and schedule 3—is that proposals for new maintained schools may be published only as part of a competition unless, on a case-by-case basis, the Secretary of State gives consent to publication outside of a competition. We will come to those circumstances when we discuss clause 9.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked specifically about section 66 of the Education Act 2005, which extended the competition provisions. During the passage of the Act, we made it clear that there would be consultation on regulations introduced under it, as all hon. Members would expect there to be. We are currently consulting on those regulations, and the consultation will finish in May, after which the provisions will come into force.
Let us turn, however, to the detail of the amendments. The Opposition amendments, in particular, seem to be intended to widen the scope of competitions. Amendment No. 24 would require local authorities to hold a competition for new schools when 
“35 per cent or more of school places are in schools that are underperforming.”
The term “underperforming” is defined in amendment No. 193.
Let us be completely clear: everybody on the Committee shares the ambition that every pupil should be in a good school. The Government take that matter seriously, which is why a major purpose of this part, and of the Bill as a whole, is to increase the range and quality of provision so that parents have more good schools to choose from. My problem with the amendment is that although competitions, which the clause is about, are important, they are not the answer to all the problems of underperformance. In their role as the champion of parents and the quality assurer of provision, local authorities need to deploy a range of measures not only to attract new schools or expand good ones, but to turn around weak schools and encourage ambition in coasting ones. That is why we are raising the bar on schools’ performance in a range of ways.

James Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. May I just say that I will not be giving way to any hon. Members during my response? [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Well, every single Liberal Democrat and all but one of the speaking Members on the Conservative Benches has had their say, and it is important that we make a bit of progress.
First, since September 2005, our expectation has been that schools should no longer be content to be satisfactory, but should strive to be good or outstanding. Secondly, as we discussed on Tuesday, we are rolling out school improvement partners to provide all schools with the appropriate support and challenge so that every school continually strives for further improvement. Thirdly, through the proposals to extend the warning notice to underperforming schools, which we shall discuss later in the Bill, we are looking for local authorities to take a more proactive role in school improvement at an early stage, before problems result in formal school failure. Local authority intervention powers will be available should underperforming schools resist making the necessary changes to improve their performance.
Those proposals, along with the investment that we are making in developing and recruiting head teachers and middle managers, are the best way to secure sustainable improvements in schools, year on year. However, we have made it clear that if a school is judged to be failing, local authorities should intervene immediately to secure effective improvements. In some circumstances, that may be done by running a competition for a replacement school, and that might be an important and appropriate way forward, but the question is whether it should be the only way forward in all circumstances. It is for the local authority, in its role as the commissioner of school places and guarantor of standards, to take a view on the best way forward in a particular case.
I hope that hon. Members agree that we need to advance on a range of fronts to improve our schools. In itself, a competition would not effect the desired change in all cases. Indeed, that is why clause 9 provides for proposals to be introduced outside a competition with the consent of the Secretary of State, particularly where we need quickly to restart a failing school. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment No. 179 would require a local authority to publish a notice inviting proposals from promoters to establish a new school where it had received representations from 50 or more parents. As we have discussed, the Government are committed to creating a school system that is shaped more by parents than the current system is. That is why, in clauses 2 and 3, we are placing new duties on local authorities to promote diversity, increase opportunities for parental choice and respond to specific representations from parents. We had a good discussion on amendments to those clauses about how we expect those duties to work. Local authorities should respond to all representations from parents and consider how best to meet their needs in light of local circumstances.
If a significant number of parents in an area asked for a new school, a competition would be one way forward. A request by fewer than 50 parents could justify a local authority in running a competition. The draft guidance on responsiveness to parental concerns, which we have made available and discussed, suggests that as an option, but it would not be the only valid response to parental representations. Parents might be seeking a particular kind of school, in which case the appropriate response would be for the local authority to explore their needs further and advise them on the options for making their own proposals, perhaps outside a competition, under the regime that we propose in clause 9. Alternatively, the local authority may identify a suitable partner to work with the parents to develop proposals in line with their wishes.
There may also be occasions on which the appropriate course of action is not to make proposals for a new school, but for the local authority to bear on an existing local school to raise its standards, or to propose that a popular local school be able to expand. Depending on the nature and level of parental demand, parents could bring pressure to bear on failing or coasting schools to increase standards, encourage schools to federate to improve or encourage popular schools to expand. In every case, and in every response, it would mean local authorities actively seeking to address parental concerns and to increase the opportunity for parental choice by improving the stock of good schools. We need local authorities, under the duties outlined in clauses 2 and 3, to respond flexibly in light of local circumstances every time there are parental representations, rather than impose a single solution by means of a trigger such as that proposed by Opposition Members.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way despite her refusal to take interventions.

Jacqui Smith: Don’t push it.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful and ungrateful at the same time.
The Minister mentioned clause 9 as one of the alternatives. I had understood that clause 9 was to be used only in exceptional circumstances and not as a general method of avoiding competitions.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right.

Frank Cook: Order. We will discuss clause 9 when we get to it.

Jacqui Smith: As I have said, clause 7 and the competition proposals in the Bill and in the 2005 Act should be the norm for the development of new and replacement schools. That is our position on clause 9, which I will leave for now.
I assure the Committee that we do not dismiss out of hand suggestions to improve the Bill and achieve our objectives. In drawing up our provisions, we thought about the pros and cons of specifying a hard and fast threshold. I think that debates today and on Tuesday have proved that we were right to conclude that a specific trigger and an automatic local authority response would not achieve what we want: local authorities throughout the whole range of their activities being, and by law having to be, responsive to parental representations however and from wherever they come.
Amendment No. 25 would require the deadline set by local authorities for the submission of proposals in a competition to be “reasonable.” Of course we would all agree that the deadline should be reasonable. We would also agree that the date should allow proposals properly to be prepared, but that it should not extend the period unduly and frustrate the competition procedure. The hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that we must get that balance right. While I share his desire that the period allowed should provide the best possible balance between a speedy competition process and adequate time to prepare proposals, I do not agree that we need this additional wording in the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman said, illustrative regulations that we have made available to the Committee say that we intend promoters to have four months to prepare their proposals. The period for additional secondary school competitions was originally half that, but we considered that additional time would be needed, particularly for some of the non-traditional promoters who might come forward through the competitions. I reiterate that we are currently consulting on regulations under the 2005 Act which extend that period to four months. Of course, that will give us the opportunity to hear from those who might want to promote proposals in competitions if they think that that is an appropriate time scale. Under our plans, promoters will be able to access independent consultancy advice funded by the Department, which is currently planned to be up to three days for each promoter, but we will want to consult on the sort of help that they will find most useful.
I was asked specifically about the capital pot that we have set aside for new promoters and priorities in the White Paper. We have set aside £150 million until 2008. However, given the pervasive nature of the reform that we want to see, we will expect local authorities to use their own funding from “building schools for the future”, formula capital and targeted capital funds first, and this capital fund will be a last resort.
I was asked how we can ensure that the opportunities that will be opened up, particularly by new trust schools, will be focused in disadvantaged areas. “Building schools for the future”, which is an important capital route for local authorities when considering reorganisations, has started in the most deprived areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) said, we have also focused academies on those most deprived areas.

Robert Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman did not speak, I will give way to him.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Is this a new ministerial way of proceeding, that one can intervene on the Minister only if one has not spoken?

Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been here for a number of years—almost as many as I have; we have probably been here for equal terms—and he knows full well that a Member who has the Floor may give way or not as they so choose.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Minister for giving way. I seek clarification regarding the £150 million that she says she has for the capital building programme. Is that specifically for trusts, or will it be spent mainly on the academies programme? I believe that there is a target of moving from the current 20 to 200.

Jacqui Smith: It will not be spent on the academies programme because we have set aside significant capital investment for that. Neither will it be spent solely on trusts, because trust schools might well be existing schools that choose to develop relationships with trusts. It will be spent on supporting the sort of priorities that are spelt out in the White Paper, including schools that might come forward when promoters actively promote them through either a competition or the provisions under clause 9. However, I reiterate that the new system should not depend on a central pot. Through the considerable additional capital that we are making available to them, all local authorities should support the development of precisely that sort of new provision.
I turn to probing amendment No. 65, which would add an extra layer of requirements for promoters of new schools to meet. There is a need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in the system to prevent unsuitable partners from being involved in running schools, but I am confident that the provisions in the Bill are adequate. The amendment would simply introduce additional bureaucracy.
Let us be clear: where a local authority invites proposals in a competition for a new school—that is what we are discussing—some, but not necessarily all, of the proposals might be for schools supported by a trust. There might be all sorts of other ways in which schools emerge in a competition. The local authority will publish a notice including certain information set out in clause 7 and in regulations. Proposals in response to the notice could be submitted by parents, voluntary groups or potential trusts. The notice inviting proposals will need to specify, for example, the possible site of the school, the date by which proposals must be submitted, the size of the school, and the community that it is intended to serve. Proposals made in response to the notice will have to provide evidence of any relevant experience in education held by the proposers.
I was asked specifically about protections that we are providing in respect of trusts, and I shall reiterate those protections. We have spelled out the first on numerous occasions, but I am, of course, willing to reassure Liberal Democrat Members. After a time, however, asking questions and seeking reassurances becomes a questioning of the policy itself.
Clause 31 requires all trusts to be incorporated charities and therefore subject to charity law. No charity can make a profit. If there are concerns, the Charity Commission will be able to intervene. Regulations made under clause 31, which I circulated to Committee members yesterday, will require each trust’s charitable objects to include the advancement of the education of the school’s pupils and the advancement of community cohesion. In addition, trusts will be under a duty to promote good race relations. Clause 31 also allows the Secretary of State to disqualify certain categories of individuals from being trustees and gives the Secretary of State a reserve power, by direction, to remove and appoint trustees where there is concern about an ongoing relationship. The draft illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations list the categories of individuals who will be disqualified from being trustees—that addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West. The categories include those prevented by education legislation from working with children or young persons, and people who at any time have been convicted of any offence and have had passed on them a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than five years.
When we discuss clauses 17 and 18, which are about the process through which the acquisition of a trust would be achieved, I shall be happy to go into detail and to provide for the Committee further guidance on the process that we will expect decision-makers to go through in order to acquire a trust. That will involve criteria that they will have to bear in mind when deciding on their relationship with a trust. That will further respond to some of the points made by hon. Members.
That is the correct approach to safeguards: it is clear and consistent. The safeguards are in the Bill, in the regulations and in the guidance which I shall ensure the Committee has an opportunity to scrutinise. Allowing each local authority to set its own conditions and criteria and to make judgments about what qualifications are needed to run a school is far less transparent and would tend to lead to a fragmented system with no consistent standards for trusts. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
I do not feel that I need to address amendment No. 27 at great length, not least because the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton acknowledged that whereas he had identified two months in respect of the local authority publishing the results of a competition, we have already set out in our regulations that the period should be three weeks. I hope that he is reassured by that.
Our proposals to increase the diversity of provision form an essential part of the new relationship between parents, schools and local authorities. As I said, the provisions in the Bill are the right way forward. They supply the appropriate protections, and I hope that all hon. Members who tabled amendments in this group will agree not to press them.

Nick Gibb: This has been a very interesting debate. I do not apologise for the fact that some time has been spent debating this group of amendments. Many Opposition Members wished to speak to the amendments. Clause 7 is a pivotal part of the Bill and the three groups of amendments to the clause should be debated in full.
In her contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made the useful suggestion that if the Minister could not accept amendment No. 179, perhaps she could suggest an alternative that gives certain groups of parents—say, in deprived areas—the kind of rights that we suggest ought to apply across the country. That is a good suggestion to which we might return on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made the important point that amendment No. 179 is not a million miles away from the principle enshrined in clause 3, except that it is more specific and would give parents the extra right, under clause 7, to insist on a competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough(Mr. Leigh) hit the nail on the head when he summed up—perhaps inadvertently—my own personal credo on education policy. The problem in British state education goes beyond party politics. Both Labour and Conservative Governments since the mid 1960s have played a part in creating the plight that we face today, wherein 23 per cent. of adults are unable to read the dosage on an aspirin bottle, and one million children are languishing in underperforming schools. The answer to our problems is for both main parties together to confront the underlying problems and the philosophy that leads to those problems that have caused the poor quality of state education—we hope that one day the Liberals will be included in that consensus.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding in full to our specific questions. When I moved the amendment I asked why section 66 of the Education Act 2005 still had not come into force. She explained—quite properly—that the Government are still consulting on the provision; that consultation will finish in May and the provision will then come into force. It seems that we are dealing with overlapping education Bills and Acts, with consultation on a previous piece of legislation still under way while we debate the next piece. That is a strange way to conduct business. We need a more long-term vision for how we reform and restructure our education system.
The Minister said that a competition is not the whole story—that a range of other methods should be, and are, part of the Bill and should be taken into account when considering how to raise standards. Of course, we agree with that statement and with those other methods. That is why we support the Bill fully. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, the Minister will be, and is, under pressure to put obstacles in the way of initiating competitions and encouraging trust schools. Our amendments are designed to reduce those obstacles and to help her to achieve the objectives set out in the White Paper. In opposing our amendment, the Minister appears to be downplaying the importance of the key provision of the Bill, saying that competitions are not the be-all and end-all of raising standards, whereas we think that they are a key method of raising standards in our educational system.
The Minister accepted that the provisions of amendment No. 179 were similar to the procedures in clause 3. Her opposition seems to be based on a bureaucratic argument that there might well be other methods, outside of the competition provisions, by which the local authority could respond to parents’ concerns. Again, that response appears to confirm my hon. Friend’s concerns that the education establishment will seek to scupper those competitions, and take a high-handed attitude to parents’ concerns.
We want the Bill to succeed, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. We are concerned that, under the clause 3 arrangements by which a local authority must consider representations, at the end of the day, the local authority could simply say, “No”. That is our concern.

John Hayes: In addition, the cards will be stacked in the localauthority’s favour. This is a David and Goliath battle. Parentswill not necessarily be best equipped to take on and overcome the localauthority’s orthodoxy, even when doing so would be in the bestinterests of their locality and theirchildren.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is aDavid and Goliath situation. To continue the analogy, we want to giveDavid a very effective slingshot with which to slay Goliath.
I believe sincerely that theeducation establishment will seek to frustrate the initiation ofcompetitions under clause 7. Our amendment would make thosecompetitions far more likely and frequent events. I invite Committeemembers to vote for amendment No. 179. The lead amendment, No. 24, is aprobing amendment that I intend to withdraw, but I shall ask theCommittee to divide on amendment No.179.

Sarah Teather: I thank the Minister for putting on the recordher response on amendment No. 65. I am grateful to hear thatregulations have been circulated. They have not arrived in the officesof any of the Liberal Democrat team, but I look forward to reading themwhen they do. I was reassured to hear that the regulations appear to gofurther than the rules laid out by the Charity Commission, which arenot adequate. Our concerns were predicated on that. When we have seenthe regulations, we will go through them. If we still have concerns, wewill table new amendments on Report, but we will not seek to pressamendment No. 65 to avote.

Nick Gibb: I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Amendmentproposed: No. 179, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at endinsert—
‘(1A) A localeducation authority must publish such a notice if they receiverepresentations from 50 or more parents of qualifying children inconnection with the establishment of a foundation, voluntary orfoundation special school or anacademy.
(1B) In subsection (1A) “qualifyingchild”, in relation to a local education authority, means anychild in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory schoolage.'.—[Mr.Gibb.]

Questionput, That the amendment bemade:—

TheCommittee divided: Ayes 7, Noes16.

Questionaccordingly negatived.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 7, page 7,line 15, leave out from second ‘school' to end of line18.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss thefollowing amendments: No. 66, in clause 7, page 7, line 16, leaveout
‘with the consent of theSecretary ofState,'.
No.76, in clause 7, page 7, line 18, at endinsert—
‘(5A) The Secretaryof State shall only consent to the publication of proposal undersubsection (5)(b)(ii) for the establishment of a community or communityspecial school if the local authority can demonstrate to the Secretaryof State that the establishment of such a school would lead tosubstantially better academic results than would be the case for afoundation or foundation specialschool.'.
No.180, in clause 7, page 7, line 18, at endinsert—
‘(5A) The Secretaryof State may not refuse consent under subsection 5(b)(ii) in any casein which the request by the authority for such consent is shown to besupported by parents in such numbers and in such categories as may beprescribed byregulations.'.
No.21, in schedule 2, page 113, line 23, leave out from ‘section'to ‘and' in line25.
No. 182, inschedule 2, page 113, line 35, at endinsert
‘and
(c)preventing further consideration of any proposal made pursuant to anotice under section 7 without there having been first conducted by therelevant authority a ballot of such category or categories of parentsas may be prescribed in which a majority of those voting have giventheir approval to the further consideration of the proposal under thisSchedule.'.

Nick Gibb: The amendments relate to clause 7(5)(b)(ii) or areconsequential amendments. As Members will know, sub-paragraph (ii) wasintroduced as a concession to the Labour rebels. It was never part of the originalvision of the White Paper or for the Bill.
In his speech on 24October, the day before the publication of the White Paper, the PrimeMinistersaid:
“We needto see every local authority moving from provider to commissioner, sothat the system acquires a local dynamism responsive to the needs oftheir communities and open to change and new forms of schoolprovision.
This willliberate local authorities from too often feeling the need to defendthe status quo, so that instead they become the champions of innovationand diversity, and the partner of local parents in driving continuousimprovement.”
Who coulddisagree with that? That is the correct vision—the vision thatwe support and the one that we believe will most effectively ensurethat the objectives of the White Paper and the Bill aredelivered.
I am pleasedthat that was the vision that appeared in paragraph 9.3, on page 104 ofthe White Paper, whichstates:
“Wewill support local authorities in playing a new commissioning role inrelation to a new school system, at the heart of their localcommunities, and responsive to the needs of parents and pupils. Theywill support new schools and new provision where there is real demandor where existing provision is poor. This is a very different role fromacting as a direct provider of school places. We recognise that in manyways it is more challenging. But it also offers the scope to ensurethat communities receive the education they deserve and aspireto.”
That is reconfirmedon the last page of the White Paper, page 116, whichsays:
“We willalso remove the right for local authorities to publish their ownproposals for the establishment of new communityschools.”
That is allvery clear and reflects the judgment of the Prime Minister and theSecretary of State—and, no doubt, the Minister for Schools aswell—that that approach is the best way to improve standards inour schools. That is the approach that they believe is in the bestinterests of our country, and as such it is an approach that theConservative partysupports.
Then camethe intervention of Lord Kinnock and Lady Morris and the brewing Labourparty rebellion, and with it the alternative White Paper, which made itclearthat:
“Localauthorities should retain the power to decide whether to functionsolely as commissioners, and not providers, of education. There shouldbe no outright ban on new schools being developed as local authoritycommunity schools.”
Thatwas followed by the Secretary of State’s letter of6February to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, whichannounced the climbdown that led to the insertion of subsection(5)(b)(ii). At the bottom of page 4 of the letter, the Secretary ofState says that
“theremay be occasions where a community school might best meet local needs.In such cases, if a local authority wished to enter a community schoolin a competition—and the Secretary of State felt that there wasmerit in such a proposal—the competition would be judged by theAdjudicator rather than the local authority. In judging thecompetition, the Adjudicator would take into account the track recordof the local authority in terms of educational performance, the degreeof diversity in the local school system and parentalpreference.”
However, that concession failed toconvince a majority of the original signatories to the early-day motionthat made manifest the extent of the discontent. Some 52 Labour Membersvoted against the Bill’s Second Reading and a substantial numberabstained.
None theless, the Bill commanded the support of the overwhelming majority ofMembers of the House. The majority for the Bill was 343—458Members voted aye and 115 voted no. A new coalition had emerged, theviews of which were not represented by the Labour rebels. As theConservative contingent of that vote of 458 Members, we did not wantthat concession allowing local authorities to propose community schoolsto be made. The Minister did not originally want that concession to bemade and, judging by the failure of all but 100 Labour Members to signthe early-day motion, I believe that the overwhelming majority ofLabour Members did not want it to be made either.
It is the Minister’sjudgment and that of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister thatwhat is best for the education of our children is that localauthorities should not be able to propose community schools. What willhelp to drive up standards is greater diversity in provision and typesof school. To achieve that objective it is important that we do notestablish any more schools of the type that currently make up theoverwhelming majority of schools.
According to any sensiblereading of the view of Members of the House, the overwhelming majorityagrees with the Minister’s and the Secretary of State’soriginal judgment that local authorities should not be permitted toestablish new community schools. Of course in democratic politics onesometimes has to compromise to get proposals through, but it was alwaysclear that Conservative Members were going to support theBill—that is certainly clear now that we have had thevote—so there was never any question of the Government needingto compromise to get the Bill through the House of Commons. It is clearthat the reason for the compromise was simply Labour party management.It was not about genuinely reflectingthe opinion of the Houseof Commons or what the Government believed was in the best interests ofthe country.
AmendmentNo. 26 would remove the compromise from the Bill by deleting subsection(5)(b)(ii), thereby restoring to the Bill a key element of the visionexpressed in the Prime Minister’s speech of 24 October and thekey vision of the White Paper that preceded the Bill. Given that thecompromise failed to convince the Labour rebels anyway, I urge theMinister to use this opportunity to restore the Bill so that itdelivers reform in tune with what her own judgment tells her is in thebest interests of thecountry.
Amendment No.76 is proposed as a fall-back position in the extreme circumstance ofthe Government failing to accept amendment No. 26. It would ensure thatcommunity schools could be established only if their establishment would lead to better academicresults and higher standards.
In its report on the WhitePaper, the Education and Skills Committee—or rather, the Labourmembers of the Committee; I do not want to drag my two hon. Friendswho are members of that Committee into this conclusion— arguedthat it saw
“no reasonwhy a local authority should not put forward a proposal for a newcommunity school when a competition for a new school is to beheld.”
In their responseto the Committee’s report, the Government accepted thatconclusion,stating:
“Weaccept the Select Committee’s view that there may, in somecircumstances, be a case for a new community school based on parentalviews, track record and other relevant practicalissues.”
The responsewent on to say that the Secretary of State’s consent would berequired, butthat
“Where alocal authority with a good track record in education proposes acommunity school that will command the support of parents, theSecretary of State will not normallyintervene.”
Given thatGovernment response, the amendment would provide substance to thefactors that the Secretary of State needs to take into account whenreaching a decision on whether to allow a local authority to establisha new community school.
From the data, it is clear thatfoundation schools outperform community schools on every measure. In2004-05, 38 per cent. of pupils in community schools achieved five ormore GCSEs, including in English and Maths, at grades A* to C, comparedwith 44.2 per cent. of pupils in foundation schools. I could quote alot more statistics, but the evidence is overwhelming that foundationschools outperform community schools. I cannot conceive ofcircumstances in which the Secretary of State would want to giveconsent, even as the Bill is currently drafted.
Amendment No. 21 is consequentto amendment No. 26. I want to say a few brief words on amendment No.66, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It seeks to take out the necessityfor the Secretary of State’s consent when a local authoritywishes to establish a new community school. The amendment is consistentwith the Liberal Democrat party’s approach to the Bill, which isto take the side of the Labour rebels and confirm that the LiberalDemocrat position on education issues, as on so much else, is firmly tothe left of the Labour party. I still hope that under their newleadership, the Liberal Democrats will begin to move away from thatextreme position to a more moderateone.

Edward Leigh: To modernise.

Nick Gibb: To modernise, as my hon. Friend says.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o'clock.